Entropy, life and teleology

[IWantGod]

or is life truly distinct from non-life — or is it evidence of teleology in the universe?

There is goal direction in nature, there is a directionality toward life and we are justified in thinking this because attributes emerge that reflect that directionality. So there is definitely evidence of teleology. The mistake that some people make is that because these qualities emerge within the processes of natural causes they can be entirely explained by natural processes without inference to anything else. This idea is just blindly assumed by materialists and teleology is ignored.

 

[lelinator]

There is goal direction in nature, there is a directionality toward life and we are justified in thinking this because attributes emerge that reflect that directionality. So there is definitely evidence of teleology. The mistake that some people make is that because these qualities emerge within the processes of natural causes they can be entirely explained by natural processes without inference to anything else. This idea is just blindly assumed by materialists and teleology is ignored.

That order exists is self-evident…that it has an ultimate purpose…isn’t.

 

[IWantGod]

that it has an ultimate purpose…isn’t.

This statement misses the point. Nature is blind, so if attributes emerge that would normally require knowledge of an environment the observer is justified in making an inference to the intentionality of an intellect which intended that those possibilities would emerge in an environment. It doesn’t matter if it happens by way of a natural process because the possibility of certain attributes presuppose the existence of an environment and prepossess life itself.

For example if an environment can in principle be seen, touched, tasted, and transversed, It would not surprise a theist that attributes would emerge that would allow an organism to touch, see, taste and transverse an environment, because God created the principles of the environment. But since nature is blind, a materialist, an atheist no-less, should not expect these things to exist, he or she should not expect to see any directionality or goal direction in nature.

 

[o_mlly]

Science defines the universe as the material universe that started at the Big Bang. For philosophy I use a different definition, “All that exists” (ATE). Using that philosophical definition then the universe cannot have an external cause.

Is reality singular? If so then which definition is primary?

 

[rossum]

Is reality singular? If so then which definition is primary?

The ATE definition is primary, since it includes the material universe of science, the STEM universe, as well as anything else that exists: djinn, gods, angels, kinnaras, heavens, Valhalla etc. The STEM universe is a subsection of the ATE universe.

Obviously, in a strictly scientific discussion I use the STEM definition; Amaterasu does not get mentioned. In a more wide ranging, philosophical discussion I can mention Avalokiteshvara and Manjusri as much as I want.

 

[Freddy]

lelinator:

that it has an ultimate purpose…isn’t.

This statement misses the point. Nature is blind…

This is wrong. Or at least misses the entire basis for why we are here.

There were interactions between basic elements right from the word go. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had hydrogen and helium. And from them all the other elements. You can say that God arranged the physical laws so that it would happen if you like. But those interactions are the basis for everything.

Just extrapolate from that and you get a physical reality where everything is interconnected. It literally couldn’t be any other way. Because if it wasn’t then there would be no reality.

Your argument, when you prune it back to find out exactly what it actually means, is nothing more than ‘we are here, therefore there must be a God’. And on the way back to reaching that statement you can swap anything at all for the first phrase and it will still be valid. So you can say ‘because it rains’ or ‘because flowers turn to the sun’ or ‘because I can see, smell and touch those flowers’.

Your teleology is nothing more than the physical laws in action that allow us to exist.

 

[Neithan]

Just extrapolate from that and you get a physical reality where everything is interconnected. It literally couldn’t be any other way. Because if it wasn’t then there would be no reality.

Life is not at all necessary from the basic physical laws, and given those laws it cannot be extrapolated (it would not be a reasonable inference). There could be a reality with no life; so whence life? We can, I expect, one day describe what happened, and perhaps explore the initial abiogenesis as a random (read: inexplicable) fluke of physical laws; but the continuous process of negative entropy demonstrated by evolution is evidence of some distinct operation unaccountable by the physical laws alone, or else there is no real distinction, which is counter-intuitive, to say the least.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Just extrapolate from that and you get a physical reality where everything is interconnected. It literally couldn’t be any other way. Because if it wasn’t then there would be no reality.

Life is not at all necessary from the basic physical laws, and given those laws it cannot be extrapolated (it would not be a reasonable inference). There could be a reality with no life; so whence life? We can, I expect, one day describe what happened, and perhaps explore the initial abiogenesis as a random (read: inexplicable) fluke of physical laws; but the continuous process of negative entropy demonstrated by evolution is evidence of some distinct operation unaccountable by the physical laws alone, or else there is no real distinction, which is counter-intuitive, to say the least.

I personally think that the physical laws do lead to life. When conditions are applicable, naturally. But I think in my lifetime we will obtain evidence from a distance planetary system that would strongly suggest that there may be life there. But that’s another matter.

That we have life here is obviously a result of the physical laws that resulted in stars and planets and this particular planet and the formation of life. Either one believes it to be a natural result of those laws or that God did it using those laws (pretty much the same thing) or he did it despite those laws.

Let’s discount the third option.

We are left with the fact that life has to be integral to the physical reality from which it rose and that therefore there is no independent teleology OR that God wanted it that way and that therefore there must be a purpose to life and it must be teleological.

So you either believe in God and there is teleology. Or you don’t and there isn’t. But you can’t deduce teleology just from the fact that we exist for the reasons already given.

 

[IWantGod]

This is wrong. Or at least misses the entire basis for why we are here.

It’s not wrong at all. If attributes emerge that presuppose an environment it is entirely reasonable to inference an intelligence behind those relationships simply because nature is blind and thus cannot be the cause of that relation. That they have emerged through a physical process is not enough to explain the relations involved and it is why an inference is made to another type of cause.

For example if you have a door, and on a table is a key that unlocks the door, one is reasonable in inferencing a relationship between the key and the door that is not accidental and that such a relationship is the product of an intellect. One does not look to the properties of the key and the door for an explanation for that relationship because they are both blind to their function and the existence of their relationship would require knowledge.

We see something similar in nature. We have an environment that can be in principle seen, touched, sensed and known, and we have witnessed the emergence of attributes that allow an organism to see, sense, and know the environment. This relation between environment and emergent attributes cannot be explained by physics alone because nature is blind and while their emergence may involve chance or randomness it is not an accident that there is a relationship between the environment and these attributes because they presuppose each-other. This is to say that a complete explanation of these relationships would require foreknowledge of an environment.

Your teleology is nothing more than the physical laws in action that allow us to exist.

It’s not enough to simply point to the laws of physics, because physics is blind and is not the cause of those relations. The relationships already exist as a possibility as nature unfolds.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This is wrong. Or at least misses the entire basis for why we are here.

It’s not wrong at all. If attributes emerge that presuppose an environment it is entirely reasonable to inference an intelligence behind those relationships simply because nature is blind and thus cannot be the cause of that relation. That they have emerged through a physical process is not enough to explain the relations involved and it is why an inference is made to another type of cause.

For example if you have a door, and on a table is a key that unlocks the door, one is reasonable in inferencing a relationship between the key and the door that is not accidental and that such a relationship is the product of an intellect. One does not look to the properties of the key and the door for an explanation for that relationship because they are both blind to their function and the existence of their relationship would require knowledge.

Attributes don’t ‘presupose’ an environment. They emerge from that environment. That aren’t separate from it but are an integral part. That’s why your key and door example doesn’t work. There is conscious thought needed to make a key to lock a door. There obviously isn’t a conscious decision to make an organ that uses light to determine if food is nearby. It is entirely accidental. IF a cell mutates that gives that ability to an organism that lives in total darkness then it is completely useless. It’s not bad design. But if an organism lives in an environment where this is even a tiny advantage then it’s usefull. But it is not good design.

What you have to ask yourself is this: What sort of world would anything live in if it couldn’t interact with the environment? Life simply wouldn’t exist.

So you have two choices. Either an organisms ability to interact with the environment is an entirely natural and inherrent part of that environment itself, no more teleological than wood burning or water freezing or (a position that I’d assume you’d take) God set all this up for a purpose. So teleology is a given, whether we can detect it or not. It’s certainly not determined by the fact that senses have developed.

 

[IWantGod]

Attributes don’t ‘presupose’ an environment.

If an environment can in principle be seen, and i develop the power of sight, then my ability to see presupposes an environment that can be seen.

What sort of world would anything live in if it couldn’t interact with the environment? Life simply wouldn’t exist.

If there were no teleological relationships in nature you would be correct to say that there would be no life.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Attributes don’t ‘presupose’ an environment.

If an environment can in principle be seen, and i develop the power of sight, then my ability to see presupposes an environment that can be seen.

But you don’t develop an ability to recognise certain wavelengths of radiation because those wavelengths exist. It’s a complete accident. So it presupposes nothing whatsoever.

 

[IWantGod]

There is conscious thought needed to make a key to lock a door.

A conscious thought and knowledge is needed in order for a relationship to exist between the key and the door.

If attributes emerge in nature that presuppose the existence of an environment i am justified in thinking that there is an intelligence behind those relations regardless of whether they emerge naturally or not.

 

[IWantGod]

But you don’t develop an ability to recognise certain wavelengths of radiation because those wavelengths exist.

I never said that. I said the the possibility of sight presupposes the existence of an environment that can be seen, as does a nervous system and the ability to hear presuppose the existence of an interactive environment. There is a relationship involved there that cannot be explained by physical processes alone.

 

[rossum]

I never said that. I said the the possibility of sight presupposes the existence of an environment that can be seen, as does a nervous system and the ability to hear presuppose the existence of an interactive environment. There is a relationship involved there that cannot be explained by physical processes alone.

There is a relationship, but it can be explained by physical processes. There is an advantage in being able to sense your environment: to avoid predators, to find prey and to find light to photosynthesise. Natural selection will spread such an advantage through the population. Even something as simple as a single-celled Euglena can sense light.

 

[IWantGod]

There is an advantage in being able to sense your environment

An advantage does not explain the possibility of those relationships. Natural selection explains why an attribute endures or not. But it doesn’t explain for example the relationship between an environment that can in principle be seen and the possibility of sight. A list of other examples can be given. A teleological relationship exists between the two regardless of whether those attributes emerge or not.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There is conscious thought needed to make a key to lock a door.

A conscious thought and knowledge is needed in order for a relationship to exist between the key and the door.

If attributes emerge in nature that presuppose the existence of an environment i am justified in thinking that there is an intelligence behind those relations regardless of whether they emerge naturally or not.

Do you think God made a conscious decision to allow life to interact with the environment? You can’t have life unless that happens. It’s like saying He made a decision to design a triangle and then decided that the angles added up to 180 degrees. The two cannot be separated.

 

[IWantGod]

Do you think God made a conscious decision to allow life to interact with the environment? You can’t have life unless that happens.

You can’t have life without teleological relationships.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

There is an advantage in being able to sense your environment

An advantage does not explain the possibility of something.

The possibility is entirely random. Throw the evolutionary dice enough times and some change will occur that will be beneficial in that particular environment. It then becomes an advantage out of sheer luck (that it then spreads through a population is a function of natural selection).

If this didn’t happen automaticall then as the environment changed, all organisms woild eventually die.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Do you think God made a conscious decision to allow life to interact with the environment? You can’t have life unless that happens.

You can’t have life without teleological relationships.

This is no less than saying that rain exists to water the plants.